This post is a follow-up to multiple Internet resources covering the activities of Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson (filed in the U.S. District Court of Boston) in defense of a 24 year old graduate student accused of illegally sharing music via the Internet.
Here's why this is important to you: THIS COULD VERY EASILY BE YOUR KID. (Did I shout that loud enough to get your attention?)
The article that I reference is: Repository Professor Nesson's Post: Eon
At last, the personal use ostriches (sarcasm) have begun lifting their heads and pushing back against predatory copyright enforcement practices. Thousands of individuals (many of them mere kids) and companies in America--the country with the lowest piracy rate on the planet--have already been "punished" by the alphabet soup copyright lynch mobs. (I'm sorry. Did I upset you by calling them lynch mobs?)
Why is it that when an individual takes action to protect their home, their family, or another person, they are frequently referred to as a vigilante and are essentially treated with less deference than the criminals they confront? Yet, when a corporation takes the law into their own hands...
Think you aren't an easy piracy, or copyright violation, audit target? Think again! I'm not pulling any punches on this post, so those of you who are sensative to "politically correct" may want to go read something by Suess. Those of you who are willing to change the world, read on for more information regarding Professor Nesson as well as other significant activities in the Push Back Initiative.
My comments to Professor Nesson and his team:
Many of us have been "Pushing Back" against predatory copyright enforcement actions since the
late 90s. It's rare, however, to see anyone in the legal field stand up in defense of the consumer--seems there's significantly more
cash to be had working WITH the enforcement groups than there is
working AGAINST them.
A significant and virtually invisible
issue that needs to be made more public is the extortionist-style
methods that some enforcement groups use to intimidate individuals
and companies into paying without the benefit of their day in court.
You mention this--Please continue doing so...loudly.
Real World - The way American copyright law is set up, if you admit wrong-doing and voluntarily correct the problem, your fine could drop significantly. Since most corporate lawyers want their clients to settle out of court, the enforcement industry players know full well that they'll get a check--frequently with only one threatening letter. Great ROI for a single stamp!
Another hidden issue of international
scope is that the majority of copyright laws, acts, and activities
over the past decade or so have been essentially based on the findings of a
single series of vendor sponsored "research" studies. These
studies have been considered thoroughly inaccurate by seemingly
everyone but the copyright industry lobbyists and the legislators for
whom they perform. (Check out UCITA as an excellent example of how ignorant legislation can follow you forever.)
Real World - There are plenty of companies that still report finding UCITA-like provisions in licenses and other software-related agreements. Look for the State of Governing Law clause. If it's Maryland or Virginia--and your state doesn't have an anti-UCITA law, you could be in for some interesting times.
Those of you who are interested may
want to look over the proactive solutions to preventing the so-called
software police and copyright cops from paying you or your company a
visit at BizTechNet.org. The key is that--whether you are an
individual, or a corporation--there are very simple, common sense
methods you can use to build a wall of due diligence between yourself
and the enforcement industry predators.
Real World - You do NOT have to purchase or try implementing any of the thousands of costly software, consulting services, or so-called standards to establlish an effective defensive perimeter against audit preditors. You just need to know how it's done.
Others may wish to look over the
University of Washington research "Why my printer received a DMCA takedown notice." (Available HERE ) The study documents how ineffective the RIAA's (and
others) targeting methods can be--including false positives
generating "take down" notices for printers, network
devices, and clean computers.
Also, Duke University has become one of the growing number of colleges to Push Back by refusing to forward blanket takedown notices on behalf of the RIAA.
Are you Pushing Back? We want to hear your story. Drop us a note and help us communicate the ways that people and companies are legally pushing back against predatory copyright enforcement.
Feel free to contact me with any
questions you may have.
|
